Step 9
in [Golf]
|
Prev: health care
Next: adams speedline fast 10 driver
From: William Clark on 18 Feb 2010 14:24 In article <7u575lFrg6U1(a)mid.individual.net>, "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> wrote: > "Moderate" <no_spam_(a)no_mail.com> wrote in message > news:hljnq4$o5c$1(a)speranza.aioe.org... > > > > "William Clark" <wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote in message > > news:wclark2-AD021F.22044317022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > >> In article <4b7c8fa6$0$5123$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, > >> Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > >> > >>> On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 19:22:56 -0500, BAR wrote: > >>> > In article <4b7c5bad$0$4878$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, > >>> > nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says... > >>> >> On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 11:25:47 -0500, Frank Ketchum wrote: > >>> >>> "Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message > >>> >>> news:4b7c1584$0$5110$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... > >>> >>>> On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 09:20:58 -0600, MNMikeW wrote: > >>> >>>>> <bknight(a)conramp.net> wrote in message > >>> >>>>> news:7ihmn5lgj229dobctt1r6atpqcq0rurdcu(a)4ax.com... > >>> >>>>>> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 20:16:01 -0500, Jack Hollis > >>> >>>>>> <xsleeper(a)aol.com> wrote: > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> Show me the place in the IPCC report where it says with > >>> >>>>>>> absolute certainty that the current warming trend is being > >>> >>>>>>> caused by humans. > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> There IS no absolute certainty either way or there wouldn't be > >>> >>>>>> any argument. > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>> Exactly Bobby, but the ideologues in the AGW crowd will have none > >>> >>>>> of that! The science is settled they spew. But it is far from > >>> >>>>> being settled. > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> Since it's far from settled, you can't exactly say AGW is wrong, > >>> >>>> now can you? > >>> >>> > >>> >>> You can't say that AGW doesn't occur. You also can't say that AGW > >>> >>> does occur. > >>> >>> > >>> >>> The AGW crowd is wrong in the sense that they have been saying for > >>> >>> years that the science is settled and AGW is happening. It was and > >>> >>> is a lie plain and simple promoted for political reasons > >>> >>> masquerading behind faulty "science". > >>> >> > >>> >> Whereas the anti-AGW crowd is on much firmer ground. Obviously all > >>> >> the non-scientific laymen pontificating here and elsewhere are in the > >>> >> best possible position to understand the issue. Ignore the > >>> >> climatologists! If they say inconvenient things they must be biased! > >>> > > >>> > Have you been living in a cave since November? The "climatologists" > >>> > have not been involved in science, they have been caught advancing > >>> > political views and social engineering. As each new day passes the > >>> > revelations that the WWF, a student's master thesis and other rabid > >>> > environmentalist organizations have been used as references to promote > >>> > the catastrophic warming described in the IPCC reports. But, you can > >>> > ignore all of that and stick to your guns and ignore all of this > >>> > because you it doesn't fit your desired outcome. > >>> > >>> I'll try this one more time. The fact that there are douchebags in a > >>> particular field does not invalidate that entire field of study. It just > >>> doesn't follow. I honestly wonder at the mental capacity of anyone who > >>> would think otherwise. > >> > >> But the fact remains that, for all their huffing and puffing, the > >> denialists have yet to prove any of the IPCC Report conclusions to be > >> wrong. > > > > Are you nuts? The hockey stick has been proven wrong, the glacial > > shrinking has been proven wrong, the sea level theory has been proven > > wrong. Good grief. > > > And yet he calls us the denialists, lol! And all of his claims above have been proven wrong. Oops!
From: William Clark on 18 Feb 2010 14:25 In article <7u5a50Fd42U1(a)mid.individual.net>, "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> wrote: > "William Clark" <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message > news:clark-0771DB.11075018022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > > In article <7u55f1FhnnU1(a)mid.individual.net>, > > "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > >> "William Clark" <wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote in message > >> news:wclark2-5A4756.22020617022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > >> > In article <wHUen.74969$RS6.11194(a)newsfe15.iad>, > >> > "Frank Ketchum" <nospam(a)thanksanyway.fu> wrote: > >> > > >> >> "Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message > >> >> news:4b7c1584$0$5110$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... > >> >> > On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 09:20:58 -0600, MNMikeW wrote: > >> >> >> <bknight(a)conramp.net> wrote in message > >> >> >> news:7ihmn5lgj229dobctt1r6atpqcq0rurdcu(a)4ax.com... > >> >> >>> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 20:16:01 -0500, Jack Hollis <xsleeper(a)aol.com> > >> >> >>> wrote: > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>>>Show me the place in the IPCC report where it says with absolute > >> >> >>>>certainty that the current warming trend is being caused by > >> >> >>>>humans. > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> There IS no absolute certainty either way or there wouldn't be any > >> >> >>> argument. > >> >> >>> > >> >> >> Exactly Bobby, but the ideologues in the AGW crowd will have none > >> >> >> of > >> >> >> that! The science is settled they spew. But it is far from being > >> >> >> settled. > >> >> > > >> >> > Since it's far from settled, you can't exactly say AGW is wrong, now > >> >> > can > >> >> > you? > >> >> > >> >> You can't say that AGW doesn't occur. You also can't say that AGW > >> >> does > >> >> occur. > >> >> > >> >> The AGW crowd is wrong in the sense that they have been saying for > >> >> years > >> >> that the science is settled and AGW is happening. It was and is a lie > >> >> plain > >> >> and simple promoted for political reasons masquerading behind faulty > >> >> "science". > >> > > >> > No they have not been saying it is "settled". > >> > >> You truely are an idiot. > > > > "Truely"? OK. show me where the science is "settled". > > It isnt. But somebody might want to tell Al Gore that. You clearly have a quote from him claiming that the science is "settled"?
From: William Clark on 18 Feb 2010 14:25 In article <hljoau$p2c$1(a)speranza.aioe.org>, "Moderate" <no_spam_(a)no_mail.com> wrote: > "William Clark" <wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote in message > news:wclark2-EB1AE8.22003517022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > > > > The overwhelming preponderance of the evidence, which none of you > > wingnuts either can, or bother to, read, is that there is a significant > > contribution from AGW. That's the starting point, so now you can jump up > > and down and stamp your feet again. > > Hahaha, you haven't read the IPCC report. That is about the only fact > related to AWG that I would bet on. And you are simply lying. Again.
From: William Clark on 18 Feb 2010 14:26 In article <7u5a6tFdemU1(a)mid.individual.net>, "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> wrote: > "William Clark" <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message > news:clark-6D9B6F.11101118022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > > In article <7u55dvFhfaU1(a)mid.individual.net>, > > "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > >> "William Clark" <wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote in message > >> news:wclark2-3DC0E6.21570317022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > >> > In article <7u2fqrFgqkU1(a)mid.individual.net>, > >> > "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> wrote: > >> > > >> >> <bknight(a)conramp.net> wrote in message > >> >> news:7ihmn5lgj229dobctt1r6atpqcq0rurdcu(a)4ax.com... > >> >> > On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 20:16:01 -0500, Jack Hollis <xsleeper(a)aol.com> > >> >> > wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> >>On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 19:05:54 -0600, bknight(a)conramp.net wrote: > >> >> >> > >> >> >>>>Again, there is absolutely no scientific proof that humans are > >> >> >>>>having > >> >> >>>>any significant impact on global temperature. > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>>That is just as asinine as someone saying that humans are the > >> >> >>>absolute > >> >> >>>cause of global temperature changes. > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>>But, Jack Hollis of RSG fame, and no climatological background, > >> >> >>>has > >> >> >>>spoken. LOL > >> >> >> > >> >> >>I have no idea how much humans are contributing to the current > >> >> >>warming > >> >> >>trend and neither does anyone else. > >> >> > > >> >> > Exactly. > >> >> > > >> >> > So how can you even discuss how much scientific proof there is... or > >> >> > isn't? This whole discussion here has reached a point of silliness, > >> >> > and definite, absolute, statements are rife. Two years ago 72% of > >> >> > climatologists thought that humans had something to do with global > >> >> > warming. Wonder what that percentage is now? > >> >> > > >> >> > Let the scientists hassle it out. > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> That would be nice, and is needed. But this is all about politics now. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >>Show me the place in the IPCC report where it says with absolute > >> >> >>certainty that the current warming > >> >> >>trend is being caused by humans. > >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > There IS no absolute certainty either way or there wouldn't be any > >> >> > argument. > >> >> > > >> >> Exactly Bobby, but the ideologues in the AGW crowd will have none of > >> >> that! > >> >> The science is settled they spew. But it is far from being settled. > >> > > >> > 100% wrong. The only ones peddling absolute certainty in this are the > >> > denialists, > >> > >> You truely are an idiot. > > > > "Truely", again? You "truly" need a spell checker. > > Humm, that is weird. I have it on. You must have the George Bush version, then :=)
From: MNMikeW on 18 Feb 2010 15:08
"William Clark" <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message news:clark-8A2C42.14142918022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > In article <7u5728Fqr8U1(a)mid.individual.net>, > "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> wrote: > >> "William Clark" <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message >> news:clark-1F01AB.11070118022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... >> > In article <7u54tbFek0U1(a)mid.individual.net>, >> > "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> wrote: >> > >> >> "William Clark" <wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote in message >> >> news:wclark2-AD021F.22044317022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... >> >> > In article <4b7c8fa6$0$5123$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, >> >> > Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 19:22:56 -0500, BAR wrote: >> >> >> > In article <4b7c5bad$0$4878$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, >> >> >> > nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says... >> >> >> >> On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 11:25:47 -0500, Frank Ketchum wrote: >> >> >> >>> "Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message >> >> >> >>> news:4b7c1584$0$5110$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... >> >> >> >>>> On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 09:20:58 -0600, MNMikeW wrote: >> >> >> >>>>> <bknight(a)conramp.net> wrote in message >> >> >> >>>>> news:7ihmn5lgj229dobctt1r6atpqcq0rurdcu(a)4ax.com... >> >> >> >>>>>> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 20:16:01 -0500, Jack Hollis >> >> >> >>>>>> <xsleeper(a)aol.com> wrote: >> >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>>>>>> Show me the place in the IPCC report where it says with >> >> >> >>>>>>> absolute certainty that the current warming trend is being >> >> >> >>>>>>> caused by humans. >> >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>>>>> There IS no absolute certainty either way or there wouldn't >> >> >> >>>>>> be >> >> >> >>>>>> any argument. >> >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>>>> Exactly Bobby, but the ideologues in the AGW crowd will have >> >> >> >>>>> none >> >> >> >>>>> of that! The science is settled they spew. But it is far from >> >> >> >>>>> being settled. >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> >>>> Since it's far from settled, you can't exactly say AGW is >> >> >> >>>> wrong, >> >> >> >>>> now can you? >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> You can't say that AGW doesn't occur. You also can't say that >> >> >> >>> AGW >> >> >> >>> does occur. >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> The AGW crowd is wrong in the sense that they have been saying >> >> >> >>> for >> >> >> >>> years that the science is settled and AGW is happening. It was >> >> >> >>> and >> >> >> >>> is a lie plain and simple promoted for political reasons >> >> >> >>> masquerading behind faulty "science". >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Whereas the anti-AGW crowd is on much firmer ground. Obviously >> >> >> >> all >> >> >> >> the non-scientific laymen pontificating here and elsewhere are >> >> >> >> in >> >> >> >> the >> >> >> >> best possible position to understand the issue. Ignore the >> >> >> >> climatologists! If they say inconvenient things they must be >> >> >> >> biased! >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Have you been living in a cave since November? The >> >> >> > "climatologists" >> >> >> > have not been involved in science, they have been caught >> >> >> > advancing >> >> >> > political views and social engineering. As each new day passes >> >> >> > the >> >> >> > revelations that the WWF, a student's master thesis and other >> >> >> > rabid >> >> >> > environmentalist organizations have been used as references to >> >> >> > promote >> >> >> > the catastrophic warming described in the IPCC reports. But, you >> >> >> > can >> >> >> > ignore all of that and stick to your guns and ignore all of this >> >> >> > because you it doesn't fit your desired outcome. >> >> >> >> >> >> I'll try this one more time. The fact that there are douchebags in >> >> >> a >> >> >> particular field does not invalidate that entire field of study. It >> >> >> just >> >> >> doesn't follow. I honestly wonder at the mental capacity of anyone >> >> >> who >> >> >> would think otherwise. >> >> > >> >> > But the fact remains that, for all their huffing and puffing, the >> >> > denialists have yet to prove any of the IPCC Report conclusions to >> >> > be >> >> > wrong. >> >> >> >> For instance, since it was revealed two weeks ago that the IPCC had >> >> relied >> >> on speculation by an environmental interest group -- rather than >> >> peer-reviewed science -- when it made its famous 2007 claim that there >> >> was a >> >> 90% chance all 15,000 glaciers in the Himalayas would be melted by >> >> 2035, >> >> the >> >> agency's lead glacier scientist, Murari Lal, has admitted he knew the >> >> data >> >> was faulty when he inserted it in the UN's last official Assessment >> >> Report, >> >> but he did so nonetheless because "we thought that if we can highlight >> >> it, >> >> it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to >> >> take >> >> some >> >> concrete action." >> >> >> >> >> >> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7231386/Afr >> >> ica >> >> n-crops-yield-another-catastrophe-for-the-IPCC.html >> > >> > No, this is nonsense. It was shown that this WWF Himalayan data (one >> > page in 3,000) was incorrect, and from a less than credible source. >> > Moreover, it contradicted the data and correct predictions contained in >> > volume 1 of the Report. There you will find a 45 page chapter on >> > glaciers, snow and ice, etc., using valid data and projections. So the >> > error was that the Chapter 2 authors, instead of relying on the >> > evidence >> > on Chapter 1, used this unsubstantiated projection. The error was >> > unearthed by, who? Gosh the IPCC authors themselves. Can you imagine >> > the >> > denialists ever calling a fault on themselves? Absolutely not. Anyway, >> > fixing this error requires no more than the deletion of two sentences >> > in >> > the 3,000 page Report. But you guys have to grab hold of it in an >> > attempt to discredit the whole thing. Typical. >> > >> > The African crop yield nonsense is based on a single reference >> > (Agoumi), >> > from a report funded by the US Agency for International Development. In >> > fact, the IPCC Report contains a detailed discussion of his projections >> > (Chapter 9), including the following caveat: "However, not all changes >> > in climate and climate variability will be negative, as agriculture and >> > the growing seasons in certain areas (for example, parts of the >> > Ethiopian highlands and parts of southern Africa such as Mozambique), >> > may lengthen under climate change, due to a combination of increased >> > temperature and rainfall changes (Thornton et al., 2006). Mild climate >> > scenarios project further benefits across African croplands for >> > irrigated and, especially, dryland farms". So it is, in fact a balanced >> > discussion of the crop issue, and not the kind of misguided hysteria >> > coming from the other side. >> > >> > You also make the error of assuming that the IPCC Panel is a UN panel. >> > It is not. And so it goes on. >> >> Nice denialism. > > Typical. Your sensationalist URLs get shot down cliches actual facts and > data, and all you can then do is shout babyish names. Did you stamp your > foot and hold your breath, too? LOL! So suddenly denialist is a babyish name! > > As has been proven over nd over again, you denialists don't have a Oops, looks like a babyish name to me. > single piece of solid research on your side, nor have you even looked at > the mountain of data and analysis you are trying to deny. All you can do > is shout "fire" in a crowded theatre. > > patheitc. It's the alarmists like shouting fire in a crowded theatre. |